Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hallucigenia · 07-19-2002, 09:10 AM

Just to address a couple of this guy's latest points:

Quote:

There are three critical flaws in the theory that change is gradual: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.

Gradual change is a separate theory from evolution; it has to do with rates not mechanisms. And not everyone agrees with Darwinian gradualism (see Gould's & Eldredge's Punctuated Equilibrium, for example).

As for that last bit about natural selection removing information...nonsense. Natural selection does nothing of the sort. Mutations within DNA result in both the gain and loss of information. Natural selection then simply removes those organisms with mutations which prove to less than favorable to the organism, given the current environment.

Natural selection does not operate on DNA (note that there are other forms of selection which operate at the gene level, however). It operates on organisms.

And I have no idea what he's even talking about with respect to the other two items.

Quote:

So somewhere down the line there will be an offspring of mine that will be more complex than me?

Says who? I thought he said that natural selection can only remove DNA information? Not only does he not understand natural selection, he can't even remain internally consistent within his own perverted version of the theory!

Quote:

Originally posted by enemigo:
Also could someone please direct me to some sources that cover the wide variety of independent evidence for the age of the earth?

Here are a couple:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html</a>

<a href="http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/geology.html" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/geology.html</a>

Aahz · 07-19-2002, 11:34 PM

Ha! I just went through something quite similar.

First, you will never win. That is if you are hoping to get him to change his mind, forget it. These people do not need empirical evidence remember. If they needed empirical evidence they'd probably be agnostics as least and atheists at best.
Second, the tactic I used that worked really well was complie a list of asked, but unanswered questions. Keep it in word and update it as necessary adding new unanswered questions. Keep notes on the bravo sierra answers so that if they pull the "I've already answered that" bullsheot you can point out they did not.
Third, often times these types are not that well educated in the necessary topics. In my case, the guy was arguing the validity of Dembski's claims. However, this guy didn't know his elbow from his a$$hole when it came to mathematics/statistics (frankly I wonder if even Dembski does given some of the idiotic things he has written). So don't be afraid to reveal this. Point out that since the guy is ill informed about the topic it seems ridiculous to be making conclusions about something he knows so little about.

Good luck. Creationists are like intellectual vampires, you'll probably never succeed in getting him to change his mind. At best he'll just disappear on you.

By the way, where is this discussion taking place....and this guy's name wouldn't happen to be Mark would it?

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Aahz ]

RufusAtticus · 07-20-2002, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by enemigo:
Evolutionary study can NEVER draw any other conclusion other than evolving life and remaining within the box. That's why you think it's a fact,if it's not a fact then you have no foundation.

What the heck is evolutionary study? Does he have any evidence to support this statement?

Quote:

There are three critical flaws in the theory that change is gradual: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.

What the heck is dysfunctional change?
Show me the genetic barrier.
Natual seleciton does reduce variation, but mutation generates it. That is one of the major points of evolutionary theory. Does he really know what he is talking about?

Quote:

So somewhere down the line there will be an offspring of mine that will be more complex than me?

Possibily, but it all depends on how one measures "more complex." If his lineage doesn't end, it is with high certianity that his offspring will be significantly different from him.

Quote:

And evolution is such a blind faith theory. You my friend have alot of faith.

What part of evolutionary theory is based on blind faith? Is that the same kind of faith found in religion? The accuracy of science cannot be determined by emotion, philosophy politics, or religion.

Quote:

The simplest living organism has over 500 amino acids. When they form they are less than one-millionth of the size of the human hair. They are formed with side groups of atoms. According to scientists all non-living amino acids form with 50% of side atoms on the right side and 50% on the left. But in living cells only on the left side will you find amino acids. This process has never been duplicated. No scinetist has ever created the left-handed amino acid needed for the beginning of life. Amino acids always, always form with left and right sided atoms. So if not one single left sided amino acid can be duplicated , how could the 500 necessary for life just form by chance? 10 to the 123rd power would be the odds if just by chance one single left sided acid formed. So that would be 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Where the heck is he getting this from? The problem here is that he is expecting the first replicator to somehow be identicle to current forms of life. The glaring problem behind this is that not enough if known about the beginnings of life to make accurate probably predictions. In fact, assuming this probability is right, all this has done is shown that it is improbable that the first replicator was made from 500 amino acids, not that it arrose natually in some other form.

~~RvFvS~~

enemigo · 07-20-2002, 08:39 AM

Quote:

RufusAtticus said:
What the heck is dysfunctional change?
Show me the genetic barrier.
Natual seleciton does reduce variation, but mutation generates it. That is one of the major points of evolutionary theory. Does he really know what he is talking about?

Heheh.. well I found the page that he cut and pasted that argument from, since it was the about the only website on the internet that used the terms "dysfunctional change" and "dna code barrier." And I told him that if he is going to cut and paste, that he really should reference his sources.. According to that page, dysfunctional change is irreducible complexity, so it was easy to shut down. Here is the site that he got it from.. its pretty weak (it makes reference to Jay Gould.. heheh):
<a href="http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml</a>

Quote:

RufusAtticus said:
Where the heck is he getting this from? The problem here is that he is expecting the first replicator to somehow be identicle to current forms of life. The glaring problem behind this is that not enough if known about the beginnings of life to make accurate probably predictions. In fact, assuming this probability is right, all this has done is shown that it is improbable that the first replicator was made from 500 amino acids, not that it arrose natually in some other form.

He probably just cut and pasted that from somewhere too.. I explained how no abiogenesis theory says that a fully modern cell popped into existence. And here is a page I found about left-sided non-biological amino acids being found in nature:
<a href="http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199703/0044.html" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199703/0044.html</a>

richard

Aahz · 07-20-2002, 09:39 AM

My guess is he is mixing his Dembski with his Behe and doing so with a heavy does of stupidity.

For Dembski anything that is specified and has a probability of occurring less than 10e-150 (Dembski calls this the Universal Probability Bound or UPB) is physically impossible.

10e-150 corresponds to 500 bits of information if you take a log base 2 of that number.

However if you have 10 experiments with 10e-150 then the probability drops to 10e-149. Which is definitely less than Dembski's UPB. Conduct the experiment 1,000,000 times and you can remove 6 of those 150 zeros (i.e. 10e-144).

We don't know how many such experiments took place way back at the begining. What if was 10e125? Suddenly it is looking far less uncertain. Also, I am not convinced that purely random construction is the only way.

Finally, Dembski is a Frequentist (i.e. that is his outlook on probability/statistics-yes there is more than one!). Frequentist probability concepts cannot be applied to past events. Especially past one shot events. Dembski (if that is the guys source and I bet it is) is violating his own viewpoint to get where he wants to go, i.e. he is a con-artist.

Albion · 07-20-2002, 10:48 AM

One thing you can do is, when he starts avoiding questions, to repeat them and keep on asking for anwers. You're never going to convince him, but there are going to be a lot of people reading your conversation, and it might be helpful for them to be reminded about which one of you isn't answering the questions.

tronvillain · 07-20-2002, 12:22 PM

Dr.GH:

Quote:

What cells don’t have cell walls?

Well, to start with, your cells don't. Neither do mine, nor do those of any other member of the kingdom Animalia.

Quote:

The most common cell on Earth )Bacteria) lacks a nucleus, but all but viruses (ok and prions) have a cell wall.

Apparently you have confused "cell wall" with "cell membrane."

tronvillain · 07-20-2002, 12:37 PM

Oolon Colluphid:

Quote:

A technicality, I think. Depends on the definition. All cells, obviously, have membranes round them, and this gets called a cell wall quite often. See eg: <a href="http://www.bact.wisc.edu/MicrotextBook/BacterialStructure/CellWall.html" target="_blank">The Cell Wall</a>.

As far as I am aware, it is never correct to call a cell membrane a cell wall. Even that link is talking about bacterial cells walls, which bacteria have in addition to cell membranes.

Quote:

However, in general biological usage, only plant cells have an actual cell wall. It’s more of a real wall than bog-standard cell-enclosing membranes, since it’s made mostly of cellulose. See <a href="http://www.biology4kids.com/files/cell_wall.html" target="_blank">http://www.biology4kids.com/files/cell_wall.html</a>

Hey, don't forget about fungi and the occasional protist.

RufusAtticus · 07-20-2002, 03:55 PM

"As far as I am aware, it is never correct to call a cell membrane a cell wall. Even that link is talking about bacterial cells walls, which bacteria have in addition to cell membranes."

I'll have to agree with this statement.

scigirl · 07-20-2002, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:
One thing you can do is, when he starts avoiding questions, to repeat them and keep on asking for anwers. You're never going to convince him, but there are going to be a lot of people reading your conversation, and it might be helpful for them to be reminded about which one of you isn't answering the questions.

Hey, welcome to infidels, Albion!

scigirl

07-19-2002, 11:34 PM	#32
Aahz Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: LA Posts: 84	Ha! I just went through something quite similar. First, you will never win. That is if you are hoping to get him to change his mind, forget it. These people do not need empirical evidence remember. If they needed empirical evidence they'd probably be agnostics as least and atheists at best. Second, the tactic I used that worked really well was complie a list of asked, but unanswered questions. Keep it in word and update it as necessary adding new unanswered questions. Keep notes on the bravo sierra answers so that if they pull the "I've already answered that" bullsheot you can point out they did not. Third, often times these types are not that well educated in the necessary topics. In my case, the guy was arguing the validity of Dembski's claims. However, this guy didn't know his elbow from his a$$hole when it came to mathematics/statistics (frankly I wonder if even Dembski does given some of the idiotic things he has written). So don't be afraid to reveal this. Point out that since the guy is ill informed about the topic it seems ridiculous to be making conclusions about something he knows so little about. Good luck. Creationists are like intellectual vampires, you'll probably never succeed in getting him to change his mind. At best he'll just disappear on you. By the way, where is this discussion taking place....and this guy's name wouldn't happen to be Mark would it? [ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Aahz ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2002, 09:39 AM	#35
Aahz Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: LA Posts: 84	My guess is he is mixing his Dembski with his Behe and doing so with a heavy does of stupidity. For Dembski anything that is specified and has a probability of occurring less than 10e-150 (Dembski calls this the Universal Probability Bound or UPB) is physically impossible. 10e-150 corresponds to 500 bits of information if you take a log base 2 of that number. However if you have 10 experiments with 10e-150 then the probability drops to 10e-149. Which is definitely less than Dembski's UPB. Conduct the experiment 1,000,000 times and you can remove 6 of those 150 zeros (i.e. 10e-144). We don't know how many such experiments took place way back at the begining. What if was 10e125? Suddenly it is looking far less uncertain. Also, I am not convinced that purely random construction is the only way. Finally, Dembski is a Frequentist (i.e. that is his outlook on probability/statistics-yes there is more than one!). Frequentist probability concepts cannot be applied to past events. Especially past one shot events. Dembski (if that is the guys source and I bet it is) is violating his own viewpoint to get where he wants to go, i.e. he is a con-artist.

07-20-2002, 10:48 AM	#36
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	One thing you can do is, when he starts avoiding questions, to repeat them and keep on asking for anwers. You're never going to convince him, but there are going to be a lot of people reading your conversation, and it might be helpful for them to be reminded about which one of you isn't answering the questions.

07-20-2002, 03:55 PM	#39
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	"As far as I am aware, it is never correct to call a cell membrane a cell wall. Even that link is talking about bacterial cells walls, which bacteria have in addition to cell membranes." I'll have to agree with this statement.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.